Rewritten play
Patrick Porter
of "the Mystery of Irma Vep"--- she decided she didn't like the script,
so she rewrote it. She assured everybody that this was perfectly legal,
and it was "..done all the time' and it was 'expected'...but I have my
doubts. What kind of trouble could somebody get into doing this?
Mark Cipra
Big, big trouble. I don't know the specifics of your case, but it is almost
certainly not legal. On a very small scale it is "done all the time" in the
sense of cutting a line or changing an obscure reference, but even this is
illegal unless specficially allowed by the contract with the rights-holder.
People get away with it because it's too small for a rights-holder to
notice. An actual rewrite is absolutely a no-no. I'm looking at a Samuel
French script which says explicitly "No one shall make any changes in this
play for the purposes of production".
If the rights-holder found out and was interested in pursuing the case, the
theater producing the show would probably get the worst of the bargain -
they'd be the actual signatories to the contract. I'm not aware of anyone
being prosecuted for this, but I do know anecdotally of a theater that a
rights-holder refused to do business with for several years. I think they
had to show they had a new artistic director.
Anyway, how could you improve on "Irma Vep"?
--
Mark Cipra
"Nothing is so dangerous as being too modern. One is apt to grow
old-fashioned quite suddenly". Wilde
Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by email.
Goodpasture
funnier than Charles Ludlam, your friend is violating the copyright
agreement. When a group is licensed to perform a play, they agree to
abide by certain rules, one of which is that they are to play the text
as the author wrote it, allowing minor adjustments for profanity, time
constraints, etc. If the licensing agency gets wind of this, they could
yank the license and shut the play down. I'm not too sure, but it seems
as though it could be actionable as well, i.e, your friend could get
sued.
Beyond the legal argument, there is a larger moral issue. The theater
thrives on mutual respect, and a director encountering a script she
doesn't like has three options -- she can continue with the project,
she can choose a different play, or she can decline the directing job.
To assume the author is incompetent is insulting, and to go so far as
to rewrite someone else's words without invitation is theatrical
treason. In the 18th century, directors rewrote "Romeo & Juliet" so the
couple would live at the end -- this is no different.
I would like to see this director's next project -- "A Doll's House"
where Nora decides Torvald isn't so bad after all and stays put? A
"Seagull" where Treplev finds great success as a writer? Perhaps a
"Waiting for Godot" where he, you know, shows up.
Your friend leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Tell her to leave the
script alone.
Christopher Jahn
news:645-454...@storefull-3213.bay.webtv.net:
> I have an aquaintance who was asked to direct a small theatre
> production of "the Mystery of Irma Vep"--- she decided she
> didn't like the script, so she rewrote it. She assured
> everybody that this was perfectly legal, and it was "..done
> all the time' and it was 'expected'...but I have my doubts.
With good reason; she's completely wrong.
> What kind of trouble could somebody get into doing this?
A lawsuit for damages and defamation. And the licensor could
blacklist her, preventing her or any company she's associated
with from producing plays they license.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
The only difference between a rut and a grave is their
dimensions.
Rebecca Webb
Licensing companies are not going to put themselves (and writers) out of
business by prosecuting impoverished community theatre companies to
gratify the egos of writers. This isn't a question of who's more
brilliant and should therefore prevail, the writer or the director. This
is about making theatre under adverse conditions including limited
resources and dwindling interest. The responsibility lies with the
organization to select plays and directors that are appropriate to the
organization's mission and resources. If you're stupid enough to insist
on slavish fidelity to a script despite the fact that your limited
resources mean a fully faithful production will be a tedious test of
endurance for the audience, you deserve to go out of business.
Rebecca Webb, published writer & community theatre director
--
"Floo Tag? It sounds like a rich man's sport to me."
"So's quidditch, Potter," Malfoy sniffed. "You'd know that ...
if you'd ever paid for a broom yourself."
http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~webbrl/AnObedientHouse/
Mark Cipra
> The key phrase in the original post is 'small theatre production.'
> Licensing companies are not going to put themselves (and writers) out
> of business by prosecuting impoverished community theatre companies to
> gratify the egos of writers. This isn't a question of who's more
> brilliant and should therefore prevail, the writer or the director.
> This is about making theatre under adverse conditions including
> limited resources and dwindling interest. The responsibility lies
> with the organization to select plays and directors that are
> appropriate to the organization's mission and resources. If you're
> stupid enough to insist on slavish fidelity to a script despite the
> fact that your limited resources mean a fully faithful production
> will be a tedious test of endurance for the audience, you deserve to
> go out of business.
>
> Rebecca Webb, published writer & community theatre director
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they don't prosecute non-commercial
theaters (but then, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they did). And
I agree that they probably wouldn't pay attention at all if you were small
enough or if the changes were minor. But they have been known to blacklist
institutions (at least for repeated violations). The instance I know of
involved a theater inserting unlicensed songs (from a different version of
the *same* show) into a production.
Jeff Berry
Rebecca Webb <web...@morris.umn.edu> wrote:
>The key phrase in the original post is 'small theatre production.'
No. Actually, the key phrase is "contract violation." Arguing about
whether or not somebody will prosecute is beside the point. The point
is that the contract says you won't change things. If you do, you are
violating that contract and that is simply wrong. Period, end of
statement.
>The responsibility lies with the
>organization to select plays and directors that are appropriate to the
>organization's mission and resources. If you're stupid enough to insist
>on slavish fidelity to a script despite the fact that your limited
>resources mean a fully faithful production will be a tedious test of
>endurance for the audience, you deserve to go out of business.
So why did they choose the script in the first place? If they feel they
need to rewrite it to make it work for them, then clearly they don't
really want to do that play -- they want to a play sort of like that
play. They should either find one they want or write their own, not
chop up someone else's work, violate their contract and then try to
pass the mess off as the work of someone (presumably) better known
and a better draw than themselves. It's dishonest both legally and
intellectually. If I go to see a production of "The
Mystery of Irma Vep" (remember her?) by Charles Ludlum, I expect to
see the work written by Charles Ludlum, not something that bears
only a faint resemblance to his work. If it's advertised as
"based on the play by Charles Ludlum" then at least it's not
being deceptively advertised ...
Jeff Berry
Rebecca Webb
> If you do, you are
> violating that contract and that is simply wrong. Period, end of
> statement.
Suggesting it's never acceptable to violate a contract is pretty shallow.
Shallowness is the source of all wrong-doing.
> So why did they choose the script in the first place?
1. Ignorance. One group selected the Depression-era operetta BABES IN
TOYLAND for the children's show (to be performed BY AND FOR children).
They apparently had no idea it was a big-budget extravaganza filled with
political and sexual humor.
2. Ego. There's a song in it a board member is just dying to sing or a
role he wants to play, so he convinces the board the show is a fabulous
choice for the organization and venue.
3. Passion. There's something in the show that really speaks to someone
in the organization and he persuades the group to produce it. A gifted
community theater director can bring across what makes the script matter
and give audience members a bonafide theatrical experience that
communicates the writer's message if he's allowed to tweak as necessary to
create an effective production from the resources available.
RW
zzz
[Snip]. If the licensing agency gets wind of this, they could
> yank the license and shut the play down. I'm not too sure, but it seems
> as though it could be actionable as well, i.e, your friend could get
> sued.
Or a venue hold where the rights holder decises not to license the venue to
do any of their plays. Holds are more frequently issued for non-payment of
fees but they may also occur for other violations. It is an easy thing for
the rights holder to do since it costs them nothing as opposed to going to
court to sue a company with few assets
> Beyond the legal argument, there is a larger moral issue. The theater
> thrives on mutual respect, and a director encountering a script she
> doesn't like has three options -- she can continue with the project,
> she can choose a different play, or she can decline the directing job.
> To assume the author is incompetent is insulting, and to go so far as
> to rewrite someone else's words without invitation is theatrical
> treason. In the 18th century, directors rewrote "Romeo & Juliet" so the
> couple would live at the end -- this is no different.
>
Actually, there is a difference - R&J is out of copyright while Irma isn't!
I agree that rewriting endings is slimy and morally bankrupt but doing it to
a play which you have contracted to do as is should send you to an even
lower level in the underworld!
As many have said before - If you can't do a play as it is written - do
something else. It doesn't matter why you can't, taste, budget, language
etc. Unless the author specifies otherwise, a good designer can figure out
how to do a show with a minimalist setting so it can be on the cheap!
Peter
Stephen Farrow
> I have an aquaintance who was asked to direct a small theatre production
> of "the Mystery of Irma Vep"--- she decided she didn't like the script,
> so she rewrote it. She assured everybody that this was perfectly legal,
It isn't.
> and it was "..done all the time'
Perhaps. Well, minor nips and tucks here and there, sure. Wholesale
rewriting, not so much.
> and it was 'expected'
Nope.
> ...but I have my doubts.
And you're right to do so.
> What kind of trouble could somebody get into doing this?
The licensing agent could pull the rights and cancel the production, and
if that happened the theatre company would quite likely be blacklisted
with that licensing agent, meaning that if the company wanted to do
another show for which that agency handled the rights, the agency would
refuse to do business with them.
--
Stephen
I'm not really a cat person. Once you've been threatened by one in a nun's
wimple it kind of takes the joy out of it.
Stephen Farrow
> The key phrase in the original post is 'small theatre production.'
> Licensing companies are not going to put themselves (and writers) out of
> business by prosecuting impoverished community theatre companies to
> gratify the egos of writers. This isn't a question of who's more
> brilliant and should therefore prevail, the writer or the director. This
> is about making theatre under adverse conditions including limited
> resources and dwindling interest. The responsibility lies with the
> organization to select plays and directors that are appropriate to the
> organization's mission and resources. If you're stupid enough to insist
> on slavish fidelity to a script despite the fact that your limited
> resources mean a fully faithful production will be a tedious test of
> endurance for the audience, you deserve to go out of business.
>
> Rebecca Webb, published writer & community theatre director
>
I wouldn't expect them to prosecute in those circumstances either, but -
as others have noted (and as I said somewhere else) - it would be much
easier for the rights-holder simply to ban such a company from licensing
their works. There's no legal action whatsoever required for that.
--
Stephen
"Chipper" Patel arrived from New Delhi in 1962 with an artificial leg
and five pounds
in his pocket. He now controls a multi-million-pound vinyl flooring
empire. He didn't
want to be filmed, so here's a tatty old comedy programme with some
women in it.
Mark Cipra
> Rebecca Webb wrote:
>> The key phrase in the original post is 'small theatre production.'
>> Licensing companies are not going to put themselves (and writers) out
>> of business by prosecuting impoverished community theatre companies
>> to gratify the egos of writers. This isn't a question of who's more
>> brilliant and should therefore prevail, the writer or the director.
>> This is about making theatre under adverse conditions including
>> limited resources and dwindling interest. The responsibility lies
>> with the organization to select plays and directors that are
>> appropriate to the organization's mission and resources. If you're
>> stupid enough to insist on slavish fidelity to a script despite the
>> fact that your limited resources mean a fully faithful production
>> will be a tedious test of endurance for the audience, you deserve to
>> go out of business.
>>
>> Rebecca Webb, published writer & community theatre director
>
> I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they don't prosecute
> non-commercial theaters (but then, I wouldn't be surprised to find
> out that they did). And I agree that they probably wouldn't pay
> attention at all if you were small enough or if the changes were
> minor. But they have been known to blacklist institutions (at least
> for repeated violations). The instance I know of involved a theater
And I should mention ... it was a completely non-professional, community
theater, although one of some size and stature in this area.
Barbara Bailey
Webb) wrote:
>Jeff wrote:
>
>> If you do, you are
>> violating that contract and that is simply wrong. Period, end of
>> statement.
>
>Suggesting it's never acceptable to violate a contract is pretty shallow.
>Shallowness is the source of all wrong-doing.
>
>> So why did they choose the script in the first place?
>
>1. Ignorance. One group selected the Depression-era operetta BABES IN
>TOYLAND for the children's show (to be performed BY AND FOR children).
>They apparently had no idea it was a big-budget extravaganza filled with
>political and sexual humor.
So they should have cancelled and chosen another show. And then read
the dadratted script before it was to late.
>
>2. Ego. There's a song in it a board member is just dying to sing or a
>role he wants to play, so he convinces the board the show is a fabulous
>choice for the organization and venue.
That's what revues are for. And karaoke bars. And Mr Microphones.
>
>3. Passion. There's something in the show that really speaks to someone
>in the organization and he persuades the group to produce it. A gifted
>community theater director can bring across what makes the script matter
>and give audience members a bonafide theatrical experience that
>communicates the writer's message if he's allowed to tweak as necessary to
>create an effective production from the resources available.
If it really speaks, then for ghod's sake why does it need to be
rewritten? If it needs to be rewritten, then it didn't speak very well
in the first place.
>
>RW
Rebecca, it's this kind of attitude that gives community theatre a bad
name among pros. Do the play you contracted for or don't. But I'd be
at the box office demanding my money back if I went to see "The
Mystery of Irma Vep" and got some hack's rewrite. And then I 'd be
asking for my season's subscription back, as well.
Rabrab
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Jeff Berry
>> If you do, you are
>> violating that contract and that is simply wrong. Period, end of
>> statement.
>Suggesting it's never acceptable to violate a contract is pretty shallow.
>Shallowness is the source of all wrong-doing.
I think that's something of an exageration; I can think of quite a few
sources of wrong-doing other than shallowness. Furthermore, violating
a contract is a breach of trust, and *that* is the cause of a lot
of problems. Trust is what lets society function. Casually breaking
contracts and promises is not an act to be undertaken lightly.
>> So why did they choose the script in the first place?
>1. Ignorance. One group selected the Depression-era operetta BABES IN
>2. Ego. There's a song in it a board member is just dying to sing or a
Are you suggesting that ignorance or ego are valid reasons to break
a contract and rewrite a show?
>3. Passion. There's something in the show that really speaks to someone
>in the organization and he persuades the group to produce it. A gifted
>community theater director can bring across what makes the script matter
>and give audience members a bonafide theatrical experience that
>communicates the writer's message if he's allowed to tweak as necessary to
>create an effective production from the resources available.
Hmm. I think I might characterize this as arrogance rather than
passion in most cases. You are suggesting that a director has
a better idea of what an author's message is than the author him/herself
who wrote the piece in the first place. Is that really your contention?
You think that, oh, George Bernard Shaw was not able to articulate
properly what he wanted to say and that George Smith of the Smalltown
Theatre (or, for that matter, George Famous of the Broadway Producing
Company) can fix that up for him?
Please understand that I'm not trying to attack you personally here;
but I think this is a pretty real issue and touches on some very
deep issues - artistic, moral and legal (since your first statement
is correct in its implication that morality and legality are not
always the same thing ...)
JB
Stephen Farrow
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> If you do, you are
>> violating that contract and that is simply wrong. Period, end of
>> statement.
>
> Suggesting it's never acceptable to violate a contract is pretty shallow.
It *is* never really "acceptable" to violate a contract. Doesn't mean
no-one does it.
> Shallowness is the source of all wrong-doing.
Radix malorum est cupiditas.
--
Stephen
My excitement must be clouding my ability to judge comedic hyperbole.
Jim Beaver
"Rebecca Webb" <web...@morris.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:webbrl-2710...@educ-dyn6.morris.umn.edu...
> The key phrase in the original post is 'small theatre production.'
> Licensing companies are not going to put themselves (and writers) out of
> business by prosecuting impoverished community theatre companies to
> gratify the egos of writers. This isn't a question of who's more
> brilliant and should therefore prevail, the writer or the director. This
> is about making theatre under adverse conditions including limited
> resources and dwindling interest. The responsibility lies with the
> organization to select plays and directors that are appropriate to the
> organization's mission and resources. If you're stupid enough to insist
> on slavish fidelity to a script despite the fact that your limited
> resources mean a fully faithful production will be a tedious test of
> endurance for the audience, you deserve to go out of business.
>
> Rebecca Webb, published writer & community theatre director
My plays are published by Samuel French & Co. If I ever heard of a theatre
doing what the original poster suggested, or what you seem to suggest is
acceptable, I would order Samuel French to boycott your theatre for my
scripts, and I have little doubt that they would do so for their entire
catalog. That's an awful lot of plays those theatres would never be allowed
to produce. I don't care if it's a community theatre with only three people
and two bucks. Disregard of copyright, especially disregard of the rights
of the playwright, is a crime in the theatre world -- in my book, one of the
worst theatrical crimes.
Of course, a theatre that would allow such a practice as wholesale rewriting
of a published playwright's sacrosanct script is very possibly a theatre
willing to steal the production by not making a contract for the rights in
the first place. Such places deserve to go out of business.
I love the theatre more than any other institution in the world. But the
playwright is the soul of the theatre and the writer's script is at the
heart of what we do. To alter it to fit one's own concept is to be a
traitor to the theatre. Of course, such traitors exist. That's why there
are contracts, and why those contracts overwhelmingly state that not one
word may be altered without the playwright's permission. Anyone who does so
is a thief and a vandal of art.
Jim Beaver
Patrick Porter
in the first place, and I'm glad I'm in like-minded company on the
subject.
Patrick
Christopher Jahn
news:webbrl-2710...@educ-dyn6.morris.umn.edu:
>> If you do, you are
>> violating that contract and that is simply wrong. Period,
>> end of statement.
>
> Suggesting it's never acceptable to violate a contract is
> pretty shallow. Shallowness is the source of all wrong-doing.
But its NEVER acceptable to violate a contract. Willingness to
violate a legally binding contract isn't merely shallow, it's
intrinsically dishonest - no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts.'
There is a word for people who think contracts are not binding:
that word is "criminal."
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Never sign a contract including any of the phrases "sort of",
kind of", or "and stuff".
Michael Kallweitt
> I love the theatre more than any other institution in the world. But the
> playwright is the soul of the theatre and the writer's script is at the
> heart of what we do. To alter it to fit one's own concept is to be a
> traitor to the theatre.
I understand that this is your position as a playwright, but I think
that a living production should be allowed a certain level of freedom
and creativity.
Let me give an example: In the last years I watched three different
stagings of Ibsen's "Hedda Gabler", and none of them showed the piece
in it's 19th century context. Each dramatic advisor took a different
approach, but they all showed the play as if it happened in our time,
and focussing on different action-guiding motives. Not to mention
that one of them even dropped the roles of Berta and Miss Tesman,
while sending a dresser onto the stage who assisted Hedda in changing
her clothes. ;-) And none of them stuck 100 % with the original text.
This was certainly not what Ibsen had in mind, but it gives the
current audience a new "key" to understand the problems his play dealt
with.
stephen...@gmail.com
Sure - I've seen reimagined Ibsen, Shakespeare, Moliere, Sheridan,
Corneille, Racine, Strindberg, Marlowe, Euripides, Plautus - but those
works are NOT UNDER COPYRIGHT. Once it's in the public domain, you can
do what you like. The play in question in this thread *isn't*, and so
is a different case entirely.
Stephen
Christopher Jahn
news:m2u01on...@lovborg.mkallweitt.skfm-wattenscheid.de:
>
> "Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> writes:
>
>> I love the theatre more than any other institution in the
>> world. But the playwright is the soul of the theatre and the
>> writer's script is at the heart of what we do. To alter it
>> to fit one's own concept is to be a traitor to the theatre.
>
> I understand that this is your position as a playwright, but I
> think that a living production should be allowed a certain
> level of freedom and creativity.
The strength of our art comes from the strict limits placed on
us, not from so-called freedoms to do what we damn well please.
Anyone can get up and make profound statements, or make ourselves
compelling to look at; our art is to to do so with someone else's
words and dictates. The true actor sticks to the script and
makes it come to life AS IF they were saying those lines for the
first time, and AS IF these choices were being made just at this
moment.
If you can't do that with a script, then you're not much of an
actor. And if you're unwilling to do that, you don't belong in
theatre.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Be excellent to each other
dgsweet
> Licensing companies are not going to put themselves (and writers) out of
> business by prosecuting impoverished community theatre companies to
> gratify the egos of writers.
Wanna bet? Dramatists are on the board of directors of Dramatists Play
Service, and they are not shy about making examples of people who
violate that contract by making unlicensed changes. The point isn't
the money, the point really and truly is the principle.
I know of more than a few well-known Broadway figures who had closed
down small productions when they've heard unlicensed liberties have
been taken with their works.
If we want people to change our stuff without our permission, we'll
write for Hollywood and make a lot more money.
JS
dgsweet
Michael Kallweitt wrote:
> I understand that this is your position as a playwright, but I think
> that a living production should be allowed a certain level of freedom
> and creativity.
I feel the same thing about other people's houses. Your house, in
fact. I'm going to come over and change that wallpaper you have in the
bedroom and put up a pattern of pink rocking horses. And that carpet
has to go. And I'm taking the screens off your porch; I like flies.
You see, a work that is still under copyright is actually OWNED by
someone and you can't make alterations on something that is someone
else's property without their permission.
By the way, I've sheduled you for plastic surgery. Really, you'll
breathe much better with a third nostril.
JS
Michael Kallweitt
> Michael Kallweitt wrote:
>
>> I understand that this is your position as a playwright, but I think
>> that a living production should be allowed a certain level of freedom
>> and creativity.
>[...]
> You see, a work that is still under copyright is actually OWNED by
> someone and you can't make alterations on something that is someone
> else's property without their permission.
Agreed. The permission wether and in which way you may use an
author's work is up to him or his legal representative.
However I felt that Jim's statement:
>>> To alter it to fit one's own concept is to be a traitor to the
>>> theatre.
was rather draconic, even though he's legally right.
Michael Kallweitt
> The strength of our art comes from the strict limits placed on
> us, not from so-called freedoms to do what we damn well please.
> Anyone can get up and make profound statements, or make ourselves
> compelling to look at; our art is to to do so with someone else's
> words and dictates. The true actor sticks to the script and
> makes it come to life AS IF they were saying those lines for the
> first time, and AS IF these choices were being made just at this
> moment.
>
> If you can't do that with a script, then you're not much of an
> actor. And if you're unwilling to do that, you don't belong in
> theatre.
I gave an example of Ibsen being played at not-so-small European
theatres [1], and I assume that they know their job.
Christopher Jahn
> I gave an example of Ibsen being played at not-so-small European
> theatres [1], and I assume that they know their job.
>
And I assume you SAW these productions?
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
As long as the music's loud enough, we won't hear the world
falling apart.
Rebecca Webb
rabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rebecca, it's this kind of attitude that gives community theatre a bad
> name among pros.
Only the bad ones.. the ones who are in it for self-gratification. The
ones who are in it for more altruistic reasons love it when other people
are, too.
Rebecca Webb
> [Do] You think that, oh, George Bernard Shaw was not able to articulate
> properly what he wanted to say and that George Smith of the Smalltown
> Theatre (or, for that matter, George Famous of the Broadway Producing
> Company) can fix that up for him?
Do you think that most published plays are on a level with Shakespeare,
Shaw, Ibsen or Euripedes?
Rebecca Webb
> > Shallowness is the source of all wrong-doing.
> Radix malorum est cupiditas.
Where does greed (or inappropriate desire, or any other unacceptable
motivation) come from? Shallowness.
Stephen Farrow
> In article <cls4k2tr264nt8k1l...@4ax.com>,
> rabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>> Rebecca, it's this kind of attitude that gives community theatre a bad
>> name among pros.
>
> Only the bad ones.. the ones who are in it for self-gratification. The
> ones who are in it for more altruistic reasons love it when other people
> are, too.
>
There are altruistic reasons for rewriting a work that's under copyright
without the author or agent's permission? Really?
Could you list them for us, please? I could use a laugh this morning.
--
Stephen
Giles: Cordelia, have you actually ever heard of tact?
Cordelia: Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass.
Stephen Farrow
>>> Shallowness is the source of all wrong-doing.
>
>> Radix malorum est cupiditas.
>
> Where does greed (or inappropriate desire, or any other unacceptable
> motivation) come from? Shallowness.
>
Not always.
--
Stephen
I got attacked by a... pencil scribble?
Rebecca Webb
<jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> My plays are published by Samuel French & Co. If I ever heard of a theatre
> doing what the original poster suggested, or what you seem to suggest is
> acceptable, I would order Samuel French to boycott your theatre for my
> scripts, and I have little doubt that they would do so for their entire
> catalog.
Think again. Do you really imagine Samuel French would come down on the
side of the writer instead of the organization from whence it draws its
profits? Nope. They'd tell him to get over himself or take his scripts
elsewhere. They put the pro-author language into their publications and
contracts (and verbally stand by them when questioned) to appease
authors. But they know perfectly well that much of what they publish is
drek and if they have to choose between a theater tweaking a script and a
theater going out of business, they'll overlook the tweaking.
> But the
> playwright is the soul of the theatre and the writer's script is at the
> heart of what we do. To alter it to fit one's own concept is to be a
> traitor to the theatre.
Interpreting a script and staging it according to that interpretation is a
director's job. Now directors are, admittedly, a fairly new concept. For
centuries, writers staged their plays. Apparently, they got tired of
doing that because it forced them to interact with so many jerks. Now,
directors feel the same way. In my neck of the woods, it's getting harder
and harder to get a show on the boards because noble people are getting
tired of dealing with ego-driven jerks (many of whom fancy themselves
writers).
If an organization has an ego-mad director butchering a perfectly fine
script, can her, or, if it's too late for that, inform her that if she
doesn't return to the original text, she won't be hired again. But rest
assured, if you (the organization/cast/producers/whoever) are the ones
being unreasonable, she won't want to work for you again anyway, and
neither will others.
Jeff Berry
Rebecca Webb <web...@morris.umn.edu> wrote:
>In article <ehtu7r$13h$1...@panix5.panix.com>, ne...@panix.com (Jeff Berry) wrote:
>> [Do] You think that, oh, George Bernard Shaw was not able to articulate
>> properly what he wanted to say and that George Smith of the Smalltown
>> Theatre (or, for that matter, George Famous of the Broadway Producing
>> Company) can fix that up for him?
>Do you think that most published plays are on a level with Shakespeare,
>Shaw, Ibsen or Euripedes?
That is, in fact, irrevelant. The fact is that *someone* wrote a play,
trying to articulate what they wanted to say. To have someone else,
*anyone* else, claim that they know better how to transmit that message
than the author is gross arrogance, hubris even.
And who am I, or who are you, to claim that the published plays are
*not* on a level with the authors you name? Are we the arbiters of
genius? We are not qualified to make the judgement, we can not know.
Cliche though it is, time will tell.
What we do know is that someone wrote a play; if we have contracted to
perform that play, then we are legally, morally and artistically obligated
to perform that play.
And ... if the play is so bad that you need to "fix it," why do it in
the first place.
JB
Rebecca Webb
stephen...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sure - I've seen reimagined Ibsen, Shakespeare, Moliere, Sheridan,
> Corneille, Racine, Strindberg, Marlowe, Euripides, Plautus - but those
> works are NOT UNDER COPYRIGHT. Once it's in the public domain, you can
> do what you like. The play in question in this thread *isn't*, and so
> is a different case entirely.
Actually, here's what Jim said:
JIM
> But the
> playwright is the soul of the theatre and the writer's script is at the
> heart of what we do. To alter it to fit one's own concept is to be a
> traitor to the theatre.
It doesn't sound to me like he thinks public domain makes it acceptable to
alter a script.
Olivier left Rosencrantz and Guildenstern out of HAMLET entirely. When I
saw the Royal Shakespeare Company perform it in Washington DC in 1985,
they had Ophelia reading her prayerbook upside down, which Hamlet
immediately spotted, tipping him off that she was spying on him.
Completely changes the context of the 'mad' scene.
Rebecca Webb
"dgsweet" <DGS...@aol.com> wrote:
> I know of more than a few well-known Broadway figures who had closed
> down small productions when they've heard unlicensed liberties have
> been taken with their works.
Name 3.
Stephen Farrow
> In article <1162076096....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> stephen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Sure - I've seen reimagined Ibsen, Shakespeare, Moliere, Sheridan,
>> Corneille, Racine, Strindberg, Marlowe, Euripides, Plautus - but those
>> works are NOT UNDER COPYRIGHT. Once it's in the public domain, you can
>> do what you like. The play in question in this thread *isn't*, and so
>> is a different case entirely.
>
> Actually, here's what Jim said:
>
> JIM
>> But the
>> playwright is the soul of the theatre and the writer's script is at the
>> heart of what we do. To alter it to fit one's own concept is to be a
>> traitor to the theatre.
>
> It doesn't sound to me like he thinks public domain makes it acceptable to
> alter a script.
I said "reimagined". I said nothing about altering scripts. I
deliberately did not use the word "rewrite". Please try and respond to
the point I *actually* made, rather than your misinterpretation of it.
Thank you.
--
Stephen
Dave: So, you'd be willing to give up evil for Lisa?
Johnny Johnson: Oh, in a heartbeat. If Lisa married me, I'd finally be able
to give up all this shallow corporate intrigue and pursue my real dream.
Dave: What's that?
Johnny Johnson: Teaching English as a second language.
Jim Beaver
>
>> > Shallowness is the source of all wrong-doing.
>
>> Radix malorum est cupiditas.
>
> Where does greed (or inappropriate desire, or any other unacceptable
> motivation) come from? Shallowness.
That's a pretty shallow viewpoint, if you ask me. Shallowness is not an
action. Neither does it exist in a vacuum as some mystical, independent
source of all evil. It's a by-product of greed, envy, lust, stupidity, and
a host of other much more interesting and deadly sins.
Jim Beaver
> In article <odx0h.3844$T_1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, "Jim Beaver"
> <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>
>> My plays are published by Samuel French & Co. If I ever heard of a
>> theatre
>> doing what the original poster suggested, or what you seem to suggest is
>> acceptable, I would order Samuel French to boycott your theatre for my
>> scripts, and I have little doubt that they would do so for their entire
>> catalog.
>
> Think again. Do you really imagine Samuel French would come down on the
> side of the writer instead of the organization from whence it draws its
> profits? Nope. They'd tell him to get over himself or take his scripts
> elsewhere. They put the pro-author language into their publications and
> contracts (and verbally stand by them when questioned) to appease
> authors. But they know perfectly well that much of what they publish is
> drek and if they have to choose between a theater tweaking a script and a
> theater going out of business, they'll overlook the tweaking.
Nobody said anything about tweaking. Reductio ad absurdum est. You were
talking about REWRITING. And Samuel French, et al, do not derive their
profits from theatres, they derive them from a percentage of the
playwright's income. If you think French and Dramatists (which is RUN by
the writers, by the way) would choose some hubris-ridden theatre doing a
wholesale rewrite (what you originally described) over their contracted
authors, then I submit that it is you who needs to think again.
>
>> But the
>> playwright is the soul of the theatre and the writer's script is at the
>> heart of what we do. To alter it to fit one's own concept is to be a
>> traitor to the theatre.
>
> Interpreting a script and staging it according to that interpretation is a
> director's job. Now directors are, admittedly, a fairly new concept. For
> centuries, writers staged their plays. Apparently, they got tired of
> doing that because it forced them to interact with so many jerks. Now,
> directors feel the same way. In my neck of the woods, it's getting harder
> and harder to get a show on the boards because noble people are getting
> tired of dealing with ego-driven jerks (many of whom fancy themselves
> writers).
Interpreting a script and staging it is also at the heart of the theatre.
Quit changing what I wrote. Of course, plays are interpreted and
reenvisioned and subtle alterations are made in staging and occasionally
dialog, but you were talking about someone REWRITING "Irma Vep." And that's
the kind of wholesale alteration I'm talking about. I wrote a play once, a
courtroom drama. The first production of it saw the director reimagining it
as a full-out farce, with the judge and attorneys dressed as rodeo clowns.
It was a brilliant reimagining of my play. But my first play, in its second
production, saw the director attempt to write his own scenes to turn the
protagonist into a heroin addict, something that had nothing whatsoever to
do with my story or characters. My representatives informed him that to
continue with rewrites would invalidate the theatre's contract and that they
would boycott the theatre. My royalties on that show were forty dollars,
yet guess who's side the publisher took? Mine or the college theatre that
produced ten-twelve plays a year? If you guess the theatre, you guess
wrong. There's nothing wrong with interpreting a play differently, and even
some line changes are perfectly fine if the writer is amenable. But for you
to say that it's the WRITER who is the ego-driven jerk if he objects is to
misdirect the term "ego-driven jerk." Nothing "noble" about that, even in
your neck of the woods.
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
"Rebecca Webb" <web...@morris.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:webbrl-3010...@educ-dyn6.morris.umn.edu...
> "dgsweet" <DGS...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I know of more than a few well-known Broadway figures who had closed
>> down small productions when they've heard unlicensed liberties have
>> been taken with their works.
>
> Name 3.
Edward Albee has closed down numerous productions of WHO'S AFRAID OF
VIRGINIA WOOLF? for attempts to play it as an all-male drama, despite the
fact that he himself is homosexual and has alluded to the homosexual element
in the play.
Samuel Beckett's estate still follows his orders and closes down productions
of WAITING FOR GODOT that do NOT have all-male casts.
Neil Simon closed down several productions attempting to do THE ODD COUPLE
as women -- because he was considering doing such a version himself and DID
NOT WANT SOMEONE ELSE REWRITING THE SCRIPT TO ACCOMMODATE THE NOTION.
There. That's three. Hint: there's more where that came from.
Jim Beaver
Michael Kallweitt
> Michael Kallweitt <M.Kal...@gmx.de> wrote in
> news:m2bqnuo...@lovborg.mkallweitt.skfm-wattenscheid.de:
>
>> I gave an example of Ibsen being played at not-so-small European
>> theatres [1], and I assume that they know their job.
>>
>
> And I assume you SAW these productions?
Yes. I saw Ibsen's "Hedda Gabler" in:
1. Bochum, Germany (Schauspielhaus, City Theatre) [1]
The one that I personally found most convincing, where everything
seemed to centre around Hedda's main objective:
"I often think there is only one thing in the world I have any turn
for. [...] Boring myself to death."
Stage design was dominated by bright, straight-lined wooden
structures. Many deviations from the original description of
characters and stage directions, e.g. Brack inflates a heart-shaped
balloon just before Hedda shoots in his direction; Tesman and Brack
watch TV; Løvborg appears as a rock star in the 3rd act, gives a
performance to Hedda; Hedda burns Løvborg's manuscript in a BBQ, ...
2. Recklinghausen, Germany (Odéon-Théâtre de l'Europe guest performance
at the Ruhrfestspiele festival) [2]
From what I overheard, Isabelle Huppert's appearance as Hedda was the
main reason for a number of specators to see this play. Rather dark,
simplistic stage design. A number of deviations from the original
description of characters. Can't say much about the text, since my
knowledge of French is too poor. It seems that I.H. doesn't like to
handle guns, as the shots were recorded.
3. Dortmund, Germany (Schauspielhaus, City Theatre) [3]
This staging focused on Hedda's desire for a luxury life. Berta and
Miss Tesman were completely missing. Elaborate stage design with a
car frame in the centre, placed on a pivot mounting. Video projection
from inside the "car". At some point, text was spoken into
microphones placed at the edge of the stage.
So these are just three examples of how differently one and the same
play can be staged.
[1] <http://www.ibsen.net/index.gan?id=45607&subid=0>
Thriceshy
reflect community standards." Same "everyone does it" excuse.
Students do, on occasion, rebel against rewrite-happy high school drama
teachers, though often threats of expulsion from the play or suspension
from school prevent the kids from standing up.
Do writers go after high schools for taking liberties with their
material? In Utah, it is a frighteningly common practice.
Kris
Christopher Jahn
> So these are just three examples of how differently one and
> the same play can be staged.
And by doing so, not one of these plays is HEDDA GABLER.
Interesting plays? Sure. HEDDA GABLER? Hell, no.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Continental Life. Why do you ask?
Christopher Jahn
> In article <cls4k2tr264nt8k1l...@4ax.com>,
> rabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>> Rebecca, it's this kind of attitude that gives community
>> theatre a bad name among pros.
>
> Only the bad ones.. the ones who are in it for
> self-gratification. The ones who are in it for more
> altruistic reasons love it when other people are, too.
>
I love it when rank amateurs spew crap like this and mean it. It
makes me glad to be out of High School.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Love as it exists in society is merely the mingling of two
fantasies and the contact of two skins.
Christopher Jahn
>> My plays are published by Samuel French & Co. If I ever
>> heard of a theatre doing what the original poster suggested,
>> or what you seem to suggest is acceptable, I would order
>> Samuel French to boycott your theatre for my scripts, and I
>> have little doubt that they would do so for their entire
>> catalog.
>
> Think again. Do you really imagine Samuel French would come
> down on the side of the writer instead of the organization
> from whence it draws its profits?
They have, they will, and they must. Samuel French honors its
contracts. And its contracts with the playwrights require that
it rigorously enforce the licenses it issues.
I have personally seen a major playwright complain to Samuel
French about a licensing violation at a regional theatre, and
seen that production halted as a result.
Rebecca, you are simply wrong. You might want to concede that
those of us who produce theatre for a living may know more about
this issue than you.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://www.actorsplayhouse.org
Barbara Bailey
Webb) wrote:
>In article <cls4k2tr264nt8k1l...@4ax.com>,
>rabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>> Rebecca, it's this kind of attitude that gives community theatre a bad
>> name among pros.
>
>Only the bad ones.. the ones who are in it for self-gratification. The
>ones who are in it for more altruistic reasons love it when other people
>are, too.
The kind who say "Screw the contract, we can do whatever we want with
this play," are the bad ones. Two of the three "reasons" that you gave
for dicking with a script are all about self-gratification. (You can
call it passion if you want, it's still self-gratification.) The other
one is about ignorance, pure and simple. None of them are legitimate
reasons to rewrite a script.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Barbara Bailey
Webb) wrote:
>In article <odx0h.3844$T_1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, "Jim Beaver"
><jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>
>> My plays are published by Samuel French & Co. If I ever heard of a theatre
>> doing what the original poster suggested, or what you seem to suggest is
>> acceptable, I would order Samuel French to boycott your theatre for my
>> scripts, and I have little doubt that they would do so for their entire
>> catalog.
>
>Think again. Do you really imagine Samuel French would come down on the
>side of the writer instead of the organization from whence it draws its
>profits? Nope. They'd tell him to get over himself or take his scripts
>elsewhere. They put the pro-author language into their publications and
>contracts (and verbally stand by them when questioned) to appease
>authors. But they know perfectly well that much of what they publish is
>drek and if they have to choose between a theater tweaking a script and a
>theater going out of business, they'll overlook the tweaking.
If French or Dramatists blacklists a theatre, they lose the income
from *that one theatre's* liscense fees.
Ah, but if French, Dramatists, et al, take a theatre's side over the
writer's, then that writer may very possibly pull his/her/their
works from the liscensing company's library, thereby costing them *all
the possible future* licensing fees.
Which one do you really think is going to add up to more in the long
run? Heck, which one do you think will be more over the course of a
year or two, never mind the long run?
Stephen Farrow
> In article <odx0h.3844$T_1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, "Jim Beaver"
> <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>
>> My plays are published by Samuel French & Co. If I ever heard of a theatre
>> doing what the original poster suggested, or what you seem to suggest is
>> acceptable, I would order Samuel French to boycott your theatre for my
>> scripts, and I have little doubt that they would do so for their entire
>> catalog.
>
> Think again. Do you really imagine Samuel French would come down on the
> side of the writer instead of the organization from whence it draws its
> profits? Nope.
You've got it the wrong way round. It's the WRITERS who supply the
products that keep Samuel French, Dramatists (Tams, MTI et al) in business.
--
Stephen
I'm way off my game. My game's left the country. It's in Cuernavaca.
dgsweet
Rebecca Webb wrote:
> > I know of more than a few well-known Broadway figures who had closed
> > down small productions when they've heard unlicensed liberties have
> > been taken with their works.
>
> Name 3.
John Weidman closed down a small theatre in New Jersey for screwing
around with ASSASSINS.
Sondheim closed down SIDE BY SIDE in Florida for substituting other
songs from his catalogue and adding narration that he hadn't
authorized.
Albee has closed down several productions of VIRGINIA WOOLF that have
cast it with all men.
I sit on the Council of the Dramatists Guild with a lot of the
best-known writers in the American theatre. We talk about this stuff.
I know how strongly these opinons are held and the lengths to which
most of these folks will go to protect the integrity of their work.
Rebecca Webb
Licensing agencies do not lack for product. Production, however, is
dwindling, and French makes money from productions.
So do writers.
As for who gets to say which scripts are good and which ones suck (or
where acceptable ones are weak).... Yo! Right here! I get to, and so do
you, and so does every other cognizant human willing to accept the
consequences of expressing an opinion.
In article <qQq1h.17458$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, "Jim Beaver"
<jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> Shallowness is not an
> action. It's a by-product of greed, envy, lust, stupidity, and
> a host of other much more interesting and deadly sins.
No, those things are a by-product of shallowness. Well, actually,
stupidity is related to shallowness. Shallowness reflects a
self-inflicted lack of intellectual and ethical development. This lack
gives birth to vices like greed, envy, etc.
> Nobody said anything about tweaking. You were
> talking about REWRITING.
No, the original poster was talking about rewriting. What do you consider
tweaking and what do you consider rewriting? I'm looking for specific
examples. Here are two for you:
1. In SPITFIRE GRILL, in a powerful scene where the heroine is about to
reveal her terrible past to a co-worker, she points out, "You don't really
know me."
"I know you're my friend," the supportive co-worker responds.
Pathetic.
The heroine isn't really friendly at all. Quite the opposite. But she is
exceedingly good, and she has begun to turn people's lives around as a
result. A much better line, better reflecting the story so far, would
have been something like, "I know what you've done" or "I know what you've
done here" or "I know what you've done for me." The original line, "I
know you're my friend," is so trite it's cringe-worthy. How unfortunate,
to make the audience cringe and pull back from an otherwise powerful
scene, because of some misguided notion that the text is sacrosanct.
2. Same show. In the script, the petty postmistress comes around and
learns to be a better person. But she is intentionally excluded from a
moment she's earned the right to participate in (the big reveal) in a
manner that makes the 'good guys' look oddly cruel and exclusionary so
late in the story. Good grief, why? Her exit isn't necessary for staging
purposes. The moment does nothing but weaken the story.
RE: your examples of productions shut down, I meant name the productions
that were shut down, like, "Chanhassen Dinner Theatre's 1995 production of
THE ODD COUPLE was shut down for casting women in the Oscar/Felix roles."
Let's see if there's any hard evidence about who gets in trouble and who
doesn't.
Stephen Farrow
> There are more 'writers' out there than you can shake a stick at.
> Licensing agencies do not lack for product. Production, however, is
> dwindling, and French makes money from productions.
> So do writers.
Uh-huh. French's exists to sell a commodity. The commodity is production
licences. The writers are the source of the product they sell. Without
the writers, they essentially do not have a business.
Whose side do you think they're going to take?
--
Stephen
Willow: He said he wasn't coming back until he had driven to all fifty
states.
Buffy: Did you explain about Hawaii?
Willow: Well, he seemed so determined.
Ignatz Buchanan
> The key phrase in the original post is 'small theatre production.'
> Licensing companies are not going to put themselves (and writers) out of
> business by prosecuting impoverished community theatre companies to
> gratify the egos of writers. This isn't a question of who's more
> brilliant and should therefore prevail, the writer or the director. This
> is about making theatre under adverse conditions including limited
> resources and dwindling interest. The responsibility lies with the
> organization to select plays and directors that are appropriate to the
> organization's mission and resources. If you're stupid enough to insist
> on slavish fidelity to a script despite the fact that your limited
> resources mean a fully faithful production will be a tedious test of
> endurance for the audience, you deserve to go out of business.
>
> Rebecca Webb, published writer & community theatre director
What's the name of your community theatre? What kind of stuff have you
published? Thanks!
I.B. Buchanan
Michael Kallweitt
> Michael Kallweitt <M.Kal...@gmx.de> wrote in
> news:m27iyho...@lovborg.mkallweitt.skfm-wattenscheid.de:
>
>> So these are just three examples of how differently one and
>> the same play can be staged.
>
> And by doing so, not one of these plays is HEDDA GABLER.
Is there a term you would use to describe those plays in their
relation to the original work -- like "based on", "plagiarism",
"rewritten", etc.?
From a legal viewpoint, I assume that even if you claim a play is
"based on", or contains strong references to, a copyrighted work, you
risk claims for infringing the author's intellectual property.
Christopher Jahn
>
> Christopher Jahn <cj...@actorsplayhouse.org> writes:
>
>> Michael Kallweitt <M.Kal...@gmx.de> wrote in
>> news:m27iyho...@lovborg.mkallweitt.skfm-wattenscheid.de:
>>
>>> So these are just three examples of how differently one and
>>> the same play can be staged.
>>
>> And by doing so, not one of these plays is HEDDA GABLER.
>
> Is there a term you would use to describe those plays in their
> relation to the original work -- like "based on",
> "plagiarism", "rewritten", etc.?
"adaptation" is the term you're looking for. The plays
referenced above are all adaptations of HEDDA GABLER.
And really, I have no problems with adaptations of plays, even
though you might believe otherwise in this discussion. I just
believe that the adaptation isn't the play; it's something else,
it's a new and different piece.
>
> From a legal viewpoint, I assume that even if you claim a play
> is "based on", or contains strong references to, a copyrighted
> work, you risk claims for infringing the author's intellectual
> property.
You cannot adapt a copyrighted work without permission of the
copyright holder. You cannot use portions of copyrighted
material in your work without licensing, outside of those usages
falling under "fair use" exclusions.
HAIRSPRAY, THE MUSICAL is an adaptation of HAIRSPRAY, a film by
Jon Waters. The people who created the musical did so with the
permission of Jon Waters.
WEST SIDE STORY is an adaptation of ROMEO AND JULIET. Since it's
in the public domain, no permission is needed.
THE MYSTERY OF IRMA VEP spoofs the horror genre of film,
specifically FRANKENSTEIN, THE MUMMY, THE WOLFMAN, and DRACULA.
Charles Busch didn't need anyone's permission, because he neither
copied any specific plotline nor did he directly quote or even
directly reference them. His play is obviously not any of these
stories even though you can see that those films are specifically
being satirized.
A key thing to know about VEP:
The intent was to be "Ridiculous." That's why only two actors
are used, and why they have a stupid amount of quick-changes.
The "ridiculous" nature is further underscored by bizarre plot
points and storylines being introduced, only to be ignored.
Gaping holes exist in the script; placed there with great care -
or utter abandon - by Busch. Even the death of the primary
character isn't clear: you are led to believe that she died in
bed, was drowned in a mill-run, or was sucked dry by a vampire.
Her son is reported (by the housekeeper) to have been killed by a
wolf - his father spends half the play tracking the wolf. At the
end, the housekeeper confesses that she drowned the boy. So was
he killed by the wolf, or did he drown? Even the characters in
the play notice the discrepancies, and comment on it at the end:
"..and yet, none of it makes any sense at all!"
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Hapiness is a warm stone circle.
Thriceshy
You were answered, but I find it telling that getting caught would be
more important to you than the morality of intellectual theft.
You seem to think that you're better able to communicate the writer's
message than the writer him/herself. That you have a better idea of
how a play should present and/or how dialogue should read than the
creator.
That's hooey. If the play doesn't put forth the message you're
shooting for, you've got the wrong play. Find another, or, even
better, write your own. When you start altering other people's works
you're not just voilating a contract, you're vandalizing another's
property. Perhaps if you held writers in higher esteem you would be
less nonchalant about mangling their property.
Kris
Christopher Jahn
> There are more 'writers' out there than you can shake a stick
> at. Licensing agencies do not lack for product. Production,
> however, is dwindling, and French makes money from
> productions. So do writers.
>
> As for who gets to say which scripts are good and which ones
> suck (or where acceptable ones are weak).... Yo! Right here!
> I get to, and so do you, and so does every other cognizant
> human willing to accept the consequences of expressing an
> opinion.
>
Yes, we do. And yet, we sign a contract. We are legally
obligated to honor that contract.
And the contract is VERY clear and VERY specific about what you
can do with a script.
http://lecatr.people.wm.edu/copy.htm#Two%20examples%20of%20playwrights%20evoking%20copyright
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on the
weekend. (Woody Allen)
Peremptorius
news:1162340527.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> You seem to think that you're better able to communicate the
> writer's message than the writer him/herself. That you have a
> better idea of how a play should present and/or how dialogue
> should read than the creator.
Do a google search on ["rebecca webb" theatre], and learn who
you're dealing with.
She's a wanna-be, with delusions of grandeur.
Stephen Farrow
> That's hooey. If the play doesn't put forth the message you're
> shooting for, you've got the wrong play. Find another, or, even
> better, write your own. When you start altering other people's works
> you're not just voilating a contract, you're vandalizing another's
> property.
Quite. It's like me taking a look at your house, which you presumably
picked out yourself according to your own criteria and
decorated/remodelled according to your specific taste, and deciding that
it'd look better with all the exterior woodwork painted lime green and
the couches recovered in tiger skin, and then breaking in and making
those changes while you were on vacation. It's not "artistic licence",
it's violation of property.
--
Stephen
May I have the envelope, please, so I can push it?
Thriceshy
heads up.
Kris
dgsweet
Rebecca Webb wrote:
> 1. In SPITFIRE GRILL, in a powerful scene where the heroine is about to
> reveal her terrible past to a co-worker, she points out, "You don't really
> know me."
> "I know you're my friend," the supportive co-worker responds.
>
> Pathetic.
>
> The heroine isn't really friendly at all. Quite the opposite. But she is
> exceedingly good, and she has begun to turn people's lives around as a
> result. A much better line, better reflecting the story so far, would
> have been something like, "I know what you've done" or "I know what you've
> done here" or "I know what you've done for me." The original line, "I
> know you're my friend," is so trite it's cringe-worthy. How unfortunate,
> to make the audience cringe and pull back from an otherwise powerful
> scene, because of some misguided notion that the text is sacrosanct.
Lord, it seems you have no understanding of the possibilities of
subtext. It may indeed have been the author's INTENT to have the
audience react to, "I know you're my friend," with "Uh, wait a second."
Just because characters say something doesn't mean that the author
means for it to be taken as the truth. Much of dialogue is deflecting,
covering up, protecting oneself, distracting others' attention ...
> 2. Same show. In the script, the petty postmistress comes around and
> learns to be a better person. But she is intentionally excluded from a
> moment she's earned the right to participate in (the big reveal) in a
> manner that makes the 'good guys' look oddly cruel and exclusionary so
> late in the story. Good grief, why? Her exit isn't necessary for staging
> purposes. The moment does nothing but weaken the story.
You know, this might be worth discussing if you were working with the
writers or if the piece were in development. But once writers have
given a work to a house like French or DPS to license, they expect the
text to be respected. Most of the pieces have gone through
developmental processes with pretty sophisticated people in the room.
Doesn't mean that what emerges is always perfect or couldn't be
improved, but it is not remotely your job to improve it.
Debating something in a classroom is another matter. I can make a
pretty good case that Shakespeare screwed up a piece of MUCH ADO.
Doesn't mean I'd rewrite it if I directed it.
If you want to propose a change, you can always write to the writer
(usually co/ the Dramatists Guild) and make your case. Some writers
will say no, but if you make a good case and the writer is in a good
mood, you may get permission.
The George Street Playhouse is doing a revival of one of my older
plays, THE VALUE OF NAMES. Jack Klugman wanted a woman to play is
daughter who looks as if she actually were the age she could be his
daughter. Since the value of Klugman acting in the play is great, I
agreed to casting an older than usual actress for the role, then wrote
some additional lines to account for her age. (Gaining an extra laugh
or two, I'm glad to say.) I was willing to tailor the piece for this
specific circumstance, and I suspect some other writers would be
willing to do so depending on the circumstances. But this is OUR right
and our job. I've seen what people do when they make unauthorized
changes, and they usually dismantle the logic of the plot or the very
carefully-constructed poltiics of the relationships.
> RE: your examples of productions shut down, I meant name the productions
> that were shut down, like, "Chanhassen Dinner Theatre's 1995 production of
> THE ODD COUPLE was shut down for casting women in the Oscar/Felix roles."
> Let's see if there's any hard evidence about who gets in trouble and who
> doesn't.
I'm just not going to take the time, except the Sondheim case was the
Coconut Grove in Miami, and that contributed to the Coconut Grove's
current difficulties.
JS
Christopher Jahn
news:1162398283.2...@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>> RE: your examples of productions shut down, I meant name the
>> productions that were shut down, like, "Chanhassen Dinner
>> Theatre's 1995 production of THE ODD COUPLE was shut down for
>> casting women in the Oscar/Felix roles." Let's see if there's
>> any hard evidence about who gets in trouble and who doesn't.
>
> I'm just not going to take the time, except the Sondheim case
> was the Coconut Grove in Miami, and that contributed to the
> Coconut Grove's current difficulties.
>
Not really. It didn't help them, to be sure, but their
difficulties run far deeper. Most of their difficulties came
from working like they were producing broadway plays instead of
regional theatre. When you're going to run a show for 5 years,
the economics are vastly different than when you know you're
doing exactly 78 performances, with a history of 60% occupancy.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
The only number that is both even and odd is infinity.
Rebecca Webb
Buchanan" <ign...@nospam.net> wrote:
> What's the name of your community theatre?
I get recruited by various organizations. Links to my productions are on
my Web page.
http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~webbrl/RWHomepage.html
> What kind of stuff have you
> published?
Feature articles in Minnesota newspapers and glossies.
dgsweet
Christopher Jahn wrote:
> "dgsweet" <DGS...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:1162398283.2...@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > was the Coconut Grove in Miami, and that contributed to the
> > Coconut Grove's current difficulties.
> >
>
> Not really. It didn't help them, to be sure, but their
> difficulties run far deeper.
Yes, like I said, it contributed to their difficulties. "Contributed"
doesn't suggest that this was the whole source of their difficulties,
but an awful lot of playwrights knew that Coconut Grove had dissed the
former president of the Dramatists Guild, and this made us all wary of
that management. That can't have made life there too easy.
JS
Lawrence Bullock
You know, I was actually taking this thread seriously until I visited your
site. You seem well intentioned, but your modicum of fame has given you a
sense of grandiosity that you haven't actually earned so much as barged into
the room and demanded. Good luck in your career.
LB